6,515: Research Misconduct Policy

Revised: December 2025

Introduction

Research Misconduct

Subsection A: Definitions

Subsection B: Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Subsection C: Compliance and Responsibilities

Introduction

The University of Nevada, Reno fosters an environment that promotes research integrity, prohibit research misconduct, and deals promptly and fairly with allegations of research misconduct.

Researchers and scholars bear primary responsibility for monitoring and e evaluating the integrity of their procedures and outcomes of research and scholarly activities.  All members of the University community must comply to the University's strict standards of integrity in academic research and scholarship and must report any fraudulent acts when such acts are known or are suspected to have occurred.  The University has a duty to promptly respond to allegations of research misconduct, as well as to protect the integrity and reputation of University researchers and scholars from false or unproven allegations of research misconduct.

To ensure the University’s obligations to the public, community of researchers and scholars, and sponsors that support research, the University promulgates this policy.

Research Misconduct

1. This policy applies to:
   1. Any individual involved in research and scholarly activities on behalf of the University regardless of the source of funding, including, but not limited to, faculty, trainees, technicians, staff members, students, fellows, visiting scholars, guest researchers, consultants, and collaborators;
   2. Any individual who was affiliated by contract or agreement with the University at the time of alleged research misconduct; and
   3. Any individual who is alleged to have committed research misconduct prior to the individual’s employment at the University, provided that the Institutional Deciding Officer determines that such allegations of research misconduct may impact the reputation of the University.

Subsection A: Definitions

Administrative Officer (AO): For this policy “Administrative Officer” is defined as the institutional official who is responsible for receiving formal reports of research misconduct and for performing the duties established for the Administrative Officer in Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code. The University President has appointed the Vice President for Research and Innovation as the Administrative Officer to respond to allegations of research misconduct.

Allegation: For this policy, “Allegation” is defined as a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or sponsoring agency official.

Assessment: For this policy, “Assessment” is defined as a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct, and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant: For this policy “Complainant” is defined as an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Confidentiality: For this policy, “Confidentiality” means maintaining the disclosure of the identity of complainants, respondents, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who must know, as determined by the institution, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who must know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. The institution, however, must disclose the identity of complainants, respondents, or other relevant individuals to federal sponsors pursuant to a federal agency review of research misconduct proceedings.

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who must know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

Evidence: For this policy, “Evidence” is defined as anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes, but is not limited to, documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication: For this policy, “Fabrication” is defined as making up data or results and recording or reporting them as factual.

Falsification: For this policy, “Falsification” is defined as manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Finding of Research Misconduct: For this policy, “Finding of a Research Misconduct” is defined as a final, institutional decision, made by the University President, that research misconduct occurred. A finding of research misconduct requires that (1) there be a significant departure from the accepted practices in the relevant research community, and (2) the research misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and (3) the allegation be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

Good Faith: For this policy, “Good Faith” as applied to a complainant or witness is defined as having a reasonable brief in the truth of an individual’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.

Making an allegation of research misconduct that is intentionally false or is made with reckless disregard for the truth constitutes a cause for discipline and may lead to the procedures and disciplinary sanctions established in Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code as making such allegation is a Prohibited Activity under NSHE Code 6.2.1(s).

Inquiry: For this policy, “Inquiry” is defined as preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and complies with the procedures of 42 CFR § 93.307 through § 93.309

Institutional Deciding Official: For this policy, “Institutional Deciding Officer” means the University President who has final decision-making authority to make the final determination on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional action.

Intentionally: For this policy, “Intentionally” means to act with the aim of carrying out such act.

Investigation: For this policy, “Investigation” is defined as the formal development of a factual record and the examination of such record in order to make a formal recommendation regarding whether or not research misconduct has occurred. Such investigation meets the criteria and complies with the procedures of 42 CFR § 93.310 through § 93.317.

Knowingly: For this policy, “Knowingly” means to act with awareness of such act.

Plagiarism: For this policy, “Plagiarism” is defined as the appropriation of another individual’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.

Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. Plagiarism does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism also does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the Evidence: For this policy, “Preponderance of the Evidence” is defined as proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issues is more likely true than not.

Recklessly: For this policy, “Recklessly” means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research: For this policy, “Research” is defined as a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The “Research Integrity Officer” refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. The Administrative Officer or the Administrative Officer’s designee serves as the University’s Research Integrity Officer.

Research Misconduct: For this policy, “Research Misconduct” is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research, reviewing research proposals, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: For this policy, “Research Misconduct Proceeding” is defined as all actions related to alleged research misconduct, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, hearings, sponsor oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record: For this policy, “Research Record” is defined as the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but a not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent: For this policy, “Respondent” is defined as the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed at or who is the subject of the research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation: For this policy, “Retaliation” is defined as an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or its members in response to a good faith allegation of research misconduct or good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Sequestration of Research Records and Other Evidence: For this policy, “Sequestration of Research Records and Other Evidence” is defined as the steps taken by the University to obtain custody of the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding.

Sponsor: For this policy, “Sponsor” is defined as an entity external to the University that provides funds to support a research project, research program, or other research, scholarly, or creative activity.

• Subsection B: Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct constitutes a cause for discipline and may lead to the procedures and disciplinary sanctions as established by Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code. Acts of academic dishonesty, including but not limed to cheating, plagiarism, falsifying research data or results, or assisting other individuals to do the same are each a Prohibited Activity under Section 6.2.1(w) of the NSHE Code. Accordingly, the University complies with the established administrative processes for assessing, investigating, and reporting allegations of research misconduct as set forth in the Code.

The University also complies with applicable federal regulations, including when allegations of research misconduct involve federally-supported research or research training programs, or applications or proposals for federally-supported research or training programs.

Procedures supplementary to Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code, specific to research misconduct proceedings, are set forth in Procedures and Guidelines for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct [link when available].

C. Subsection C: Responsibilities

1. The University must:
   1. Maintain an active Institutional Research Integrity Assurance with the Public Health Services, Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity (ORI); and
   2. Submit annual reports to the ORI, including information that ORI requests regarding the University’s research misconduct proceedings.
2. In response to an allegation of research misconduct, the University must:
   1. Assess the allegation to determine whether the assessment meets the criteria for further action;
   2. Conduct an inquiry to determine if the allegation has substance, when warranted;
   3. Investigate in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner, including, but not limited to taking precautions to ensure that individuals who are responsible for carrying out the research misconduct proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with any complainant, respondent, or witness, when warranted;
   4. Upon the University President’s acceptance of the Administrative Officer’s recommendation, conduct a hearing in accordance with Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code;
   5. Limit the disclosure of the identity of any complainant, respondent, witness, and any others involved in research misconduct proceeding to only individuals who must know;
   6. Protect the confidentiality of research subjects identifiable in research records or other evidence;
   7. Comply with all sponsor regulations for reporting and investigating cases of alleged research misconduct;
   8. Provide for reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, and committee members and protect such individuals from retaliation bv respondents and/or other institutional members; and
   9. Provide for reasonable and practical steps to protect and restore the reputation of individuals alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct in made.
3. Any individual involved in research and other scholarly activities must:
   1. Maintain the highest standards of ethical practices in scholarship, research, and creative endeavors;
   2. Exercise integrity and transparency in conducting research and recording and reporting results;
   3. Promote fairness in the recognition of the work of others;
   4. Comply with all internal and external requirements to protect the public, human subjects and project personnel, and to ensure the welfare of laboratory animals;
   5. Report, in good faith, observed, suspected, apparent, or actual research misconduct. Any University employee who receives and allegation of research misconduct is responsible for immediately forwarding the allegation to the Vice President of Research and Innovation or to the Director of Research Integrity and Security;
   6. Respect the right of individuals to make good faith allegations of research misconduct;
   7. Cooperate with research misconduct proceedings, including sequestration of the research record and other evidence, when applicable;
   8. Observe confidentiality with respect to the subject matter of allegations of research misconduct and the identities of all individuals involved in research misconduct proceedings; and
   9. Comply with the decisions of the University President.